From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3156D1F45F for ; Wed, 8 May 2019 02:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726998AbfEHC4r (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 22:56:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50374 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726670AbfEHC4r (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 22:56:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066F714EA9F; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:56:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=0BKbXoBwOkLBTxNSQYdHF/Vrink=; b=mP0tlT PNnnGG7/8bQ8tqFNzI9Cs6bBAeQ2BiCwSDbBviJv+hsvqsFPHaLYDgsl1KotdVXk d1NhOGOg2JbLSPYcMkrcOGIfOdhuRrNRAHAfby+XkT/tlLDrq27LcOUEglCs2gOV vu1ytGtCGUxqJuOGuPJVZr2eZX1eZQLyK3sak= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=rqB6w/WYDRx+ce6kNY5ICcBO2lMkMn8I FjZPiL3NI3i0jAcS7kn1jg0TjetzBxI3vk+gC752pxNZin73M05cG5CylpY/92Tx dbujz+EtAulZvRhAzft90poCmOVjOzLDOBiwVoaYSmJ7RshoE5jjyKuMFrudm6ci lYESLE/v5Yc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A4D14EA9D; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.255.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C30C14EA9C; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:56:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stephen Boyd Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Xiaolong Ye Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: Make --base patch-id output stable References: <20190426235157.106350-1-sboyd@kernel.org> <20190426235157.106350-2-sboyd@kernel.org> <155725118838.14659.6891235578536334187@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 11:56:43 +0900 In-Reply-To: <155725118838.14659.6891235578536334187@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> (Stephen Boyd's message of "Tue, 07 May 2019 10:46:28 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E9B6E716-713C-11E9-8F22-46F8B7964D18-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stephen Boyd writes: > Quoting Junio C Hamano (2019-05-06 21:38:24) >> Stephen Boyd writes: >> >> > I wonder if we need to make some other sort of form of >> > "prerequisite-patch-id:" here and let that be a legacy form of the >> > patch-id so that users know that they have a fixed version of this code? >> > Maybe "prerequisite-stable-patch-id:"? Or we don't have to care because >> > it's been broken for anything besides the most trivial type of patches >> > and presumably users aren't able to use it with 'patch-id --stable'? >> >> Do projects actively use -O when generating the patches? >> I had an impression that not many do, and without -O in >> the picture, --unstable/--stable would not matter, no? >> >> So, I am not sure if this matters very much in practice. >> > > I'm not really concerned with projects using -O for patch > generation. I think I misunderstood, then. I have been assuming that the order of target file paths was the primary thing that contributes to the differences between --[un]stable modes, but apparently I forgot about that 30e12b92 ("patch-id: make it stable against hunk reordering", 2014-04-27) affects even a patch that touches a single path. If we advise "--stable" in the documentation to those who wants to interpret "--base", then I agree with the goal of this series to make sure that is what actually is happening. Thanks for working on this.